‘Firefly’ Rewind – Episode 14: ‘Objects in Space’

We’re at the final regular stop on our summer trip through Joss Whedon’s outer space Western “Firefly,” but not the last stop, period, since I’ll have at least a few things to say about the movie a week from today. In the meantime, a review of the final episode of the TV show itself coming up just as soon as I rub soup in my hair…

“Permission to come aboard?” -River

“Objects in Space” wasn’t the last episode of “Firefly” produced, nor the final one aired (remember, FOX decided to save “Serenity” for last), but it works well as the much-too-soon series finale in the DVD order Whedon settled on. Though the first and only season was largely telling standalone stories about the jobs Mal and the crew hired on to do, the most prominent ongoing element was River’s presence on the ship and the trouble it caused. So it feels right for the series to close on an episode where the hunt for River finally extends inside the walls of Serenity, and where River is finally accepted as part of the crew, in a lovely tracking shot that connects her to all the other characters.

On Whedon’s DVD commentary track for this episode – one of the few DVD commentaries I’ve ever listened to more than once, and one I recommend if you care about the show and somehow haven’t heard it yet – he talks about how the episode’s roots were born in his teenage crisis of faith and discovery of existentialism, and the idea of morality in a world without God, which he previously summed up in a line from “Angel”: “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.”

Again, I highly endorse listening to Joss monologue for 40+ minutes on that subject, on the importance of Summer Glau’s feet and on Tim Minear’s inability to pronounce “Boba Fett” correctly. It’s an interesting, entertaining(*) glimpse into the mind of one of the most creative writers in the business, and it neatly illustrates the themes of the episode, and the bond between Summer and bounty hunter Jubal Early, and explains why (beyond the fact that she’s crazy) River looks at a gun and sees a tree branch on the Serenity cargo bay floor.

(*) I used to listen to DVD commentaries far more than I do now, just due to time constraints, and one of the things that always bugged me was when the participants would just pause for long stretches to watch the movie or show. Then a couple of weeks ago, I was invited to appear on a commentary track for a “Treme” episode written by my friend, the late David Mills. Though I vowed that I would try to keep the conversation going at all times, it’s a lot harder than it looks from the outside, and there were definitely spots where the actors and I weren’t as talkative as we should have been. That experience only increased my appreciation for guys like Joss and Kevin Smith who can talk endlessly about the experience. And because Joss doesn’t let up for almost all of it, it stands out when he finally does acknowledge that he’s pausing just because he wants to enjoy the exchange Simon and Jubal Early have about the arsonist dwarf. That’s a bit that amused me when I watched the episode sans commentary, but when Joss shuts up and says it’s one of his favorite scenes he’s ever written, I pay extra notice.

But even without the commentary, “Objects in Space” stands out as one of the most memorable, and (intentionally) weirdest, episodes of the series.

Because River’s mind was cracked open and not put back together properly by the Alliance, it seems only fair that the man who should finally come for her be not all there himself. Richard Brooks, best known for being the stiffest (and least supermodel-y) of all the prosecutorial sidekicks on the original “Law & Order”(**), might have seemed an unlikely choice to play Early, but he’s fantastic: so cool and creepy and dangerous and mad. Some of the latter wasn’t originally on the page, but when Brooks read the “Maybe I’ve always been here?” line to Kaylee as if Early wasn’t entirely sure himself, Whedon was inspired to have him keep pushing the performance in that direction.

(**) He was less surprising to me, since I’d already had my “Wow, Richard Brooks is a lot of fun when he gets to loosen up” epiphany when watching him on a short-lived USA series called “G Vs. E,” where Brooks got to wear an afro, sing along to the Commodores and generally be awesome.

Only a madman could find River Tam, but only a madman could be distracted as long as Early was by her claim that she had become part of the ship. The episode wisely keeps Glau off-screen for the middle portion, and because we still don’t entirely understand what River’s powers are beyond mind-reading and blind marksmanship, it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility that she could have merged with Serenity. Stranger things have happened on Whedon shows, and the focus on River and Early made this feel like a bizarre enough hour where it could have happened.

Instead, River singlehandedly frees Mal, inspires Kaylee to be brave, and tricks Early into coming back out onto the hull so that Mal can punch him off into space. River becomes a full part of the crew – Nathan Fillion playing Mal’s joy at greeting her after the plan works out is wonderful to behold – while Early is left tumbling endlessly in the void, saying a line that, given the cancellation, feels like a sadly appropriate farewell:

“Well… here I am.”

And “Firefly” appeared destined to remain an object in space, floating forever in the minds of its fans without ever getting a chance to move forward.

The fans, though, had other ideas. About which we’ll get to next week.

Some other thoughts:

-Jewel Staite never fails to give me the chills in the scene where Early warns Kaylee that he’ll rape her if she gives him any trouble. As Joss puts it in the commentary, it’s the sort of thing you write and then wonder about your goodness as a person, but there’s no questioning how great Staite is at playing Kaylee’s terror.

-Note how quickly and decisively Early chooses to take out Book, and then how he dismisses him to Simon by saying, “That ain’t a shepherd.” Once again, Book was much more dangerous than he let on.

-Book earns his concussion, I suppose, by stepping in on the closest Simon and Kaylee have yet come to a kiss. It’s interesting, though, to see how physically close and affectionate they are earlier in the episode when he’s telling her a story from his surgical days.

-Early’s red pleather space-suit is bad-ass. Just sayin’.

-The scene in the galley where Kaylee tells the others about River’s shooting exploits while River listens from below and Early from above (because they are the same) is like some kind of crazy The Quotable Jayne Cobb’s greatest hits segment. I have a hard time picking my favorite dumb thing he says there, but it’s probably the mangled, “If wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak” line.

Coming up next: The franchise began with a movie-length TV episode called “Serenity.” It ends with a genuine movie of the same name.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

I find it interesting that while Buffy, a show which had a solid seven season run, gets an eighth ‘season’ in the form of comic books, while ‘Firefly’ has only had a few pieces of expanded content.

Having said that, I don’t particularly enjoy Buffy Season 8, largely because there’s just about nothing in it that feels real and grounded anymore.

Thanks for the recaps Alan!

By: Jason Potapoff

09.07.2010 @ 4:56 PM

I think the reason for that was Whedon had mapped out what he planned on doing for season 8 of Buffy before he found out that he wasn’t going to get a season 8. So it wasn’t a lot of work for him to write up season 8 in comic book form. (plus the greater chance of financial success at such an endeavor made it easy to sell the idea to a comic book company). Whereas I think he knew he wasn’t going to get another season of Firefly before he started working on season 2’s episodes so he he would be writing from scratch more or less for a Firefly comic book. And by that time he probably had moved on from Firefly. The fact that Firefly got the movie is probably another factor, he got tell his story in a movie instead of having to turn to comics to tell the story.

By: Mark M

09.08.2010 @ 9:37 AM

Have you got any evidence for that, Jason? Because it seems to me that Whedon always knew Buffy would finish at Season 7, which is why S7 wrapped up the series so completely. S8 has always struck me as a fan inspired add-on. Also, why the big gap (was it 4 years?) between S7 and the comics if they were always in the pipe-line?

By: Chrissy

09.08.2010 @ 8:12 PM

Yeah, I’m curious too. Season 8 as described in the comics seems like it would be insanely expensive to produce, also (what with the giants and skinless people and horde of well-trained svelte female Slayers).

By: jenfullmoon

09.09.2010 @ 9:12 PM

Well, given the events of the movie, it kind of sounds like Joss hasn’t really wanted to talk about that world past that ah, moment in time. Hence why we get a lot of prequel comics. Beats me why Patton Oswalt got to talk about post-Serenity, though.

By: Missy

09.19.2010 @ 11:23 AM

Joss chose to end BtVS at S7 during the break between S6 and S7 because he felt burnt out doing Angel,Firefly and BtVS and didn’t think he was giving his all…..plus he wanted to have more time to concentrate on Firefly.
Also Sarah Michelle Geller wanted out and contracts were up anyhow.
All this came from Joss Whedon himself in various interviews.

By: Thirith

09.07.2010 @ 12:11 PM

Write a comment…

By: Thirith

09.07.2010 @ 12:18 PM

My apologies for the previous non-comment – I was still trying to figure out how HitFix works.

Thanks for the blog entry on one of my favourite episodes of the series. Even thinking about it makes me wonder where Whedon could’ve taken this series.

I’m curious as to what he’ll do next; after Firefly I checked out Buffy (which I’d previously avoided) and loved it, though I’m still somewhat on the fence when it comes to Angel. Dollhouse was entertaining enough, but it lacked that certain something that made me a Buffy/Firefly addict.

Alan, what did you think of Dollhouse?

By: sepinwall

09.07.2010 @ 1:35 PM

I thought Dollhouse was flawed but interesting. You can read all my old reviews about it at

Did whedon ever say anything about what would have happened if the series had not been cancalled?

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:26 PM

@Matthew Whedon has said that Serenity the movie is what he would have imagine the end of season two to be (remember Firefly is really only a half season by network standards). There are also Serenity comics ([en.wikipedia.org]) which bridge the gap between the first half of season one and the movie. Just be aware that Volume 2 comes before volume one storywise. Dark Horse is also publishing a graphic novel about the back ground of Shepard Book.

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:32 PM

@Thirith I think that Angel is a more grown up show than Buffy and lead to a deeper exploration of how people go through making amends for their bad actions. To me it is more serialized and richer than Buffy which was constantly learning and experiment with convention. The arcs are a lot deeper in Angel and shows my how Whedon and Minear could develop Firefly.

The ending of Dollhouse to me confirms and idea I had about Shephard Book. Boyd was the founder of the Dollhouse. We know that Shephard Book has high clearance within the alliance. I am think that Book was originally involved in the program that took River into to be a genetic experiment. In Objects in Space Shephard Book while zen is read by River to be vehemently against her friend. Also if you look at the scene where they all debate River’s capabilities Book is sure of what River can do.

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:33 PM

*vehemently against her freedom

By: carpediva

09.07.2010 @ 1:05 PM

Wow, Jubal Early = FREAK.SHOW. he was so confused and creepy and unsettling. Richard Brooks really killed it. There were so many moments i replayed more than once, just because they were so compellingly odd and oddly compelling. These would include:

Dr. Simon Tam: So you’re a bounty hunter.
Jubal Early: No, that ain’t it at all.
Dr. Simon Tam: Then what are you?
Jubal Early: I’m a bounty hunter.

Thanks so much for the commentary head’s up, Alan. I wanted to listen just for the joy of hearing Joss explain that last exchange, but it’s great to know the whole thing is such a treat.

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:36 PM

He doesn’t explain what any of the exchanges specifically mean but only their larger philosophical underpinnings.

Do you know if it is just a joke that Early gets Alliance mixed up with a lion or does it have some other meaning?

By: Mark M

09.08.2010 @ 9:42 AM

I take it to mean that Early has an inflated sense of his own self-worth.

By: Tausif Khan

09.10.2010 @ 7:31 AM

Hmm thanks for the response that helps.

By: carpediva

09.07.2010 @ 1:13 PM

Alan, your point about the fine art of DVD commentating was interesting and made me wonder… would you include Ronald D. Moore on that list with Smith and Whedon?

I could be biased since BSG is my favorite series of all time, but I LOVED his podcasts. (Except when Mrs. Ron would show up and blather on, distracting both him and the listener. No offense intended; I’m sure she’s lovely.)

By: sepinwall

09.07.2010 @ 1:36 PM

Loved Moore’s podcast commentaries, so much so I would listen to them in the car without having the show on.

By: Linda

09.07.2010 @ 1:34 PM

As a big Joss Whedon fan, I of course loved Firefly. It was mind-numbing dumb how Fox treated the show (and by extension the fans) with how they reorganized the order they were shown. I thought some of the characters were awesome (Captain Tightpants, the Hero of Canton, the lovely married couple, and Kaylee), was growing to really like River, starting to be interested in Book, neutral on Simon and turned off by Inara.

G vs E rocked! Of course it also had the great Clayton Rohner who was also fantastic in One of the Boys. Now I might have to go dust off some DVDs…

By: 7s Tim

09.07.2010 @ 3:33 PM

*cough*Just One of the Guys*cough*
(was gonna mention that as well, but would have simply referred to hiim as the “It’s okay, he’s got t**’s” guy)

Also, if G vs E was available on DVD, you think we could have talked Alan into making it next year’s rewind?

By: DougMac

09.07.2010 @ 7:08 PM

Don’t forget Deacon Jones as the chief

By: Bobo

09.07.2010 @ 8:07 PM

Great to hear some G vs E love. I though I was the only person who remembered that show. Who do we have to petition to get a DVD release?

By: astrolad

09.07.2010 @ 1:39 PM

One of the best shows to ever hit the small screen, yet it only ran for 14 episodes. That seem right to you?

By: Gumphood

09.07.2010 @ 2:21 PM

Write a comment…

By: Gumphood

09.07.2010 @ 2:26 PM

I just pulled a thirth, and did the old “no comment move”.

I was watching Firefly (second time) and Deadwood (first time) this weekend and it was an interesting pairing of the two shows. I really enjoyed Objects in Space, but I watched on the instant streaming on netflix, so I’d be curious as too Joss’ take on this episode. I remember thinking that it was one of my favorites.

As much as I liked the “if horses were wishes” one of my favorite scenes was when there was a fight going on, and it cuts to jayne, the music swells, he reveals his guns, and then turns over using the extra sheet as another blanket. I enjoyed that river didn’t even bothers waking Jane up.

Very enjoyable series and episode, and really its too bad that it didn’t go into other seasons as this was probably Joss’ best work.

By: MarkR

09.07.2010 @ 2:38 PM

Great review of this ep. Some important bits I think you left out, that I liked particularly about this episode are b/c it showed a bit more of Simon’s “edge”, so to speak – how he held his cool while the bounty hunter was leading him around the ship at gunpoint, the way he flung himself after the guy even after he got shot. And it also introduced an interesting dilemma – when he had to choose between “helping” Jubal look for his sister, or risking Kaylee.

Other highlights for me was the exchange at the dinner table –
Jayne – “She’s in Congress?”
Zoe’s – “We live on a spaceship, dear”
and just the way, when you could cut the tension with a knife in that scene, Wash is the one to try and break that tension with a nervous joke. Truly he was an empathetic character.

By: anthonystrand

09.07.2010 @ 2:53 PM

I grew up in a house where my parents watched Law & Order constantly, so I saw a whole bunch of episodes from the first three seasons. And I never put together that Jubal Early was that same guy. Terrific work, Mr. Brooks.

Finally decided to give this show another chance (didn’t care for the episode Fox originally ran) and found that I liked it after all and have been following along with the reviews as I watch them. For some reason, the review for Heart of Gold hides during Hitfix searches. I only found it by searching Google and linking direct to it.

By: Cheesybird

09.07.2010 @ 3:47 PM

I just re watched Objects in Space yesterday, Firefly has become part of my late summer schedule… though I think I may have watched it about 6 months ago too. Trying to not over-watch the series I love, like to keep loving them. I do catch myself thinking this was a perfect show even though they did not get to actualize in the time-sense the quality was just so good very early on. I like Out of Gas for my favorite but there are moments fromt he whole that I keep and lines from all that end up on my fridge. I seem to be the lone fan in my acquaintances as they certainly look consternated when they see the wishes quote or “…certainly coming to a middle.” I was pleased to read your article this morning. Nice to read things that do not glorify the drek.

By: Anonymous

09.07.2010 @ 4:03 PM

One of my favorite moments in this episode is when River walks around the ship and hears what everyone is really thinking. There’s a moment during Mal’s argument with Inara where River shows us his despair under the tough exterior that just breaks my heart…

By: Jason Potapoff

09.07.2010 @ 4:13 PM

Have you ever listened to the commentary on John Frankenheimer’ s Ronin? I haven’t gotten around to it yet but my brother said it was fantastic. Frankenheimer turned the commentary into a course on film making and the 2 hour movie wasn’t long enough, he could have easily done 3 comments.

By: sepinwall

09.07.2010 @ 4:19 PM

Frankenheimer always gave great commentary. The one for “The Train” is another favorite, as is his commentary for the original “Manchurian Candidate.”

By: Anonymous

09.07.2010 @ 4:15 PM

“…his teenage crisis of faith and discovery of existentialism, and the idea of morality in a world without God, which he previously summed up in a line from “Angel”: “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.”

It’s a pity that this quote doesn’t really make any sense, because it sure SOUNDS nice. If nothing we do matters, then nothing we do matters; none of it matters more or less. I understand it as a sort of “this is all we have” sentiment, but that wouldn’t change the fact that, well, it doesn’t matter.

I like a lot of Whedon’s stuff, but as someone who finds existentialism to be useless, and objective morality without God to be both convenient and impossible, I often find myself aghast with his clumsy attempts to reconcile his own beliefs. He writes a bit like a theist, even though he’s an admitted atheist, and he seems intent on finding convoluted ways to make hopeful, morality-laden stories jibe with the colder conclusions he actually holds to be true. There’s obviously a lot of tension between good, firm storytelling and the pointless of existence, and the inevitable result is a line like the one above, which is the clear product of a great writer grappling with substantial cognitive dissonance.

As the Buffy finale shows us, if Whedon is forced to choose between the integrity of the narrative and whatever ideological point he wants to make, he’ll choose the latter. It’s a pity, because it does stain my enjoyment of the man’s work from time to time. I’ll keep watching, but it remains a frustrating blot on an otherwise impressive career.

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:41 PM

If nothing we do matters (if there is not larger purpose to our actions) then all that matters is what we do (we are left to our own devices and develop a conciousness that we by ourselves can evaluate as something good).

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:53 PM

Whedon is just stating a simply fact that humans should create morality for themselves that they feel is right. We judge each other all the time. life is one big trial. However, in the end to Whedon we must be true to ourselves and feel that we are good people.

I don’t understand how that is an ideological point.

I am confused by your comments about Buffy. I felt he rapped up all the story lines fairly well. The point of the show was to change the cliche of a blond going down a dark alley and getting stabbed. He wanted the blond to fight back. He referenced this at end of season 5. In season 7 with all girls sharing power it once again connects to this central theme. It is a part of the fabric of the story and what makes it rich and compelling.

Media is about communication. There are people on the screen saying something to indicate something to the viewer (this is purposefully done by the creator of the show). The people move visually on television to convey other messages (again controlled by the writer). None of this is random. Media is about communication. If you are not saying anything in making a television show it is worthless to the critical eye and ear.

Joss also makes sure that every one of his beliefs are generally countered by dialogue with someone who believes the opposite. He has stated:

Joss Whedon is the creator/producer of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, and the new Firefly.
The Onion: Is there a God?

Joss Whedon: No.

O: That’s it, end of story, no?

JW: Absolutely not. That’s a very important and necessary thing to learn.

He always wants questions and discussion.

By: Anonymous

09.07.2010 @ 5:20 PM

“If nothing we do matters (if there is not larger purpose to our actions) then all that matters is what we do (we are left to our own devices and develop a conciousness that we by ourselves can evaluate as something good).”

Your second parenthical is a pretty large extrapolation from the quote itself; I think Whedon decided he’d rather say something pithy and symmetrical than something which actually conveys his meaning.

Anyway, I understand the concept behind existentialism, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s circular. The fact that we’re self-aware enough to call whatever we do “good” does not change the truth in the first part of the quote: nothing we do matters. Mind you, I don’t actually believe this to be true, but someone of Whedon’s stated beliefs should, if they follow their beliefs through to their logical conclusion. It’s not clever to say “if nothing we do matters, then nothing we do matters,” but it makes more sense.

“Whedon is just stating a simply fact that humans should create morality for themselves that they feel is right. We judge each other all the time. life is one big trial. However, in the end to Whedon we must be true to ourselves and feel that we are good people.

I don’t understand how that is an ideological point.”

I find this hard to believe. The difference between subjective and objective morality is profound, for exactly the reasons you suggest. It dismisses the beliefs of just about every major religion in history; of course it’s an ideological point!

“I am confused by your comments about Buffy. I felt he rapped up all the story lines fairly well.”

I’m thinking of a few things, but primarily of the fact that the uber-vamps went from borderline impossible-to-kill to amateurish slayers killing them by the boatload. Whedon was asked about this at least once and offered up a mea culpa, saying that he simply wanted to drive the series’ feminist point home, so he sacrified narrative consistency to do so. Nevermind that the show’s title, and 99% of what’s on screen had already been doing that for 7 years.

“He always wants questions and discussion.”

I really don’t see how this statement at all follows from the quoted interview in The Onion. Answering flatly “No” is more or less the polar opposite of “questions and discussion.”

Regardless, I’m not accusing him of being especially preachy or heavy-handed, for the most part. I’m saying that I think there’s a good deal of tension between what he says he believes, and the way he writes. I think his personal beliefs are inconsistent with the way he likes to tell stories (and the way good stories are told in general), and that his embrace of humanism and existentialism involves a lot of ideological gymnastics, and sometimes, like with the “Angel” quote, it can be pretty obvious.

By: Chrissy

09.07.2010 @ 6:06 PM

I think you may be taking the quote too literally. I take it to mean the following – if there is no great account-taking of our actions (no god, no higher power, no Powers That Be), than our actions don’t matter in a grander sense. But they still matter in the here and now – I can still choose to treat you well or treat you poorly, and that matters whether or not someone in the sky is watching me. The first half of the sentence refers to a larger sense of meaning, the second to a more mundane person-to-person sense. It makes absolute sense to me and is rather in line with what I believe.

In Angel’s specific case, he is coming to terms with the fact that his drive for redemption might not mean anything to anyone but himself (and perhaps his friends) – there might not be a redemption, but he can still choose, every day, to do the right thing and help people, to ease suffering and bring hope. That is worthwhile – I’m not sure how a lack of a deity would make it less so. He follows up the quote you pulled by saying “Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.” Yes, Joss is prettying up the language, but I don’t think his point is obscured.

By: Anonymous

09.07.2010 @ 6:58 PM

If there’s no “bigger meaning,” then the “smallest act of kindness” has no meaning, either. By suggesting otherwise, Whedon (or you, or whoever) is still operating under the assumption that kindness is objectively good, which in turn rests on the assumption that things really can be objectively good or bad, which in turn rests on the assumption that there is an objective standard against which they can be deemed good or bad. Without such a standard, there’d be no weight in calling anything “good,” because it would refer only to what we happen to prefer. Or, as a shorthand, we can ask ourselves what Angel means when he says this kindness is the “greatest” thing in the world. Greatest how? It’s not a very significant or poetic statement if he only means that he, personally, happens to like it.

By: Anonymous

09.07.2010 @ 7:05 PM

Also, my apologies for inadvertently starting a theological discussion. I’m trying to keep the focus on Whedon. My main point is that, as someone who believes very different things than the man, I find it both intriguing and frustrating that he’s sort of willing to “play” along with certain concepts that make for better storytelling, even though I don’t believe they’re consistent with his beliefs. This is something I find he has in common with other atheist or agnostic storytellers, with some exceptions.

By: Chrissy

09.07.2010 @ 7:45 PM

I understand your point, from a sort of philosophical standpoint. But I think empirical evidence tells us that it is good when someone is kind to us. Whether that is “objectively” true is not particularly important to me, although I understand that it may be for you, and for many others. If Angel were writing a philosophy thesis, he would need to do a better job of backing up his argument, but he’s not. He’s talking about what feels true to him, and what feels true to many, many people, religious or otherwise.

By: MadlyMild

09.07.2010 @ 10:46 PM

I can’t speak for JW, but I feel that its clear that this isn’t a theological discussion. The point is that if there is no “theo” then we each decide our morality, and act accordingly. Which makes it very important for you own actions (yours and your friends, in the case of Angel and in many of ours) to be righteous.

By: Tausif Khsn

09.08.2010 @ 3:08 AM

@ Chris Bower

If nothing we do matters- this seems like a response by a person who has just found out that there is no higher power to judge him for his actions. The following question comes: The what is life worth living for?

Answer: The all that matters is what we do- I can generate meaning for my life. I will decide whether the things I do are good or bad. I will have an internal metric for whether I am a good person.

This does not assume objectivity. A court of law is based on the consensus of the subjective desires of other individuals. These judgments are then formed into law and are used as the basis for passing judgment on other human beings. These are earth bound decisions made by earth bound people there are no supernatural beings making decisions for how we live our lives.

We as humans choose together how to make up society and the rules for good behavior. Individuals choose within that construct how to make their lives good. They can only decide if their lives are good based on how they feel about their lives. Other people can only judge you based on the actions you do (seen Seinfeld last episode it is a review of their entire lives of menuscia in which their peers are their judges). This is life.

By: Tausif Khan

09.08.2010 @ 3:13 AM

“I find this hard to believe. The difference between subjective and objective morality is profound, for exactly the reasons you suggest. It dismisses the beliefs of just about every major religion in history; of course it’s an ideological point!”

Dismissing the beliefs or religions in history is not an ideological point overtly. It is a theological point. You are debating within the context of reasoned discussions about a supernatural being who rules over humanity.

ideology is the study of ideas. In a more modern context it is associated specifically with political discussions.

By: Tausif Khan

09.08.2010 @ 3:20 AM

As I said media is for communication. The people on television say and do things for specific purposes. Those purposes are to communicate something to the viewing audience. Whedon wanted to use his time to discuss how the cliche of a blond girl going down an ally and getting killed is wrong. He tied back to this message at the end of both seasons five and seven.

Whedon was always under pressure to produce quality television very cheaply. The character’s relevant strengths changed all through out the run of the show. One week Buffy is fighting four vampires at once and then sometimes she has a hard time staking one. Angel would fight vampires all the time but still had a hard time getting out of the cage in the library. Principal Robin Wood is human and was able to take on three vamps at once. The strength changed based on budget costs as well and time.

This does not undermine what Whedon was trying to say which is always the point of any media communication.

Joss Whedon is the creator/producer of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, and the new Firefly.
The Onion: Is there a God?

Joss Whedon: No.

O: That’s it, end of story, no?

JW: Absolutely not. That’s a very important and necessary thing to learn.

In the last two lines Whedon affirms that just because he doesn’t believe in God does not mean that another people can not have different beliefs. In every one of his shows when ever a character brings up an atheist point it is answered by a character in the next piece of dialogue.

More to the point if the same question had been asked of Christopher Hitchens he also would have said no and when the reporter asked if that is the end of the story Hitchens would have said yes.

By: Anonymous

09.09.2010 @ 8:08 PM

As far as this morality/existentialism debate is going, I think people are missing one of the big points of existentialism, which exists outside of calling any action ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – the point isn’t so much to find your own way to classify what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ without an omnipotent third party deciding that for you; the point is to *own your actions* – if there no higher power, we then must answer to ourselves (this is what I take from the Angel quote – if nothing we do matters [because there is no omnipotent and omniscient instigator or judge of our actions], all that matters is what we do [the buck both starts and stops with you].

Look back at the closing of Sartre’s “The Flies” – this is one of the best literary expressions of the concept, and I think it is the same concept to which Whedon is appealing. (note – I’m not prepared to advocate for the validity of existentialism here, instead I’m just trying to clarify some of the terms)

By: Tausif Khan

09.10.2010 @ 7:38 AM

@ Charles Thanks for the informed response. You are correct to point to Sartre’s iteration of existentialism because Whedon specifically says that Jean Paul Sartre’s Nausea was the first book he read on existentialism (however he cautions people because following this statement he says that he is not a philosopher and does not read philosophy on a regular basis and that this piece particularly spoke to him).

The Sartre work I would refer you to though however is No Exit which posits the theory that hell is other people. People can only be judged by what they do and they are constantly at the mercy of other people to get through life (hence Joss’ usual statements where people comment that he hates people).

This why I made my conclusions. I will check “The Flies” sounds like a good read.

By: Anonymous

09.10.2010 @ 4:22 PM

Sorry, forgot to respond to this the other day. I’ll try to condense my response into two replies:

“The all that matters is what we do- I can generate meaning for my life. I will decide whether the things I do are good or bad. I will have an internal metric for whether I am a good person.”

Which is another way of saying there’s no such thing as meaning. This is exactly my point: that things like “humanism” and “existentialism” do not actually reconcile the lack of meaning, they just redefine the word so that whatever we happen to want has “meaning.” That’s like a dull person redefining the word “charismatic” so that it applies to them.

“This does not assume objectivity. A court of law is based on the consensus of the subjective desires of other individuals. These judgments are then formed into law and are used as the basis for passing judgment on other human beings. These are earth bound decisions made by earth bound people there are no supernatural beings making decisions for how we live our lives.”

I’m not disputing that societies create laws for themselves. I’m talking about one’s personal sense of morality, which a moment’s thought will reveal is NOT analagous to the law. Any number of terrible things are legal.

“Dismissing the beliefs or religions in history is not an ideological point overtly. It is a theological point. You are debating within the context of reasoned discussions about a supernatural being who rules over humanity.

ideology is the study of ideas. In a more modern context it is associated specifically with political discussions.”

If ideology is the study of ideas, then one’s religion (or lack thereof) is well within its bounds. A person’s ideology encompasses their religious beliefs. Basically, I’m using the word in the dictionary sense. If you use it in some kind of perceived modern sense, that’s fine, but I’m not sure how relevant that would be. The initial issue was whether or not the claim was a significant one with ramifications for many people’s beliefs. And, of course, it is.

By: Anonymous

09.10.2010 @ 4:24 PM

“Whedon was always under pressure to produce quality television very cheaply. The character’s relevant strengths changed all through out the run of the show. … The strength changed based on budget costs as well and time.”

Yes, but again, Whedon himself acknowledged what I’m saying. It wasn’t a budgetary issue. I’m not nitpicking little details, I’m citing a specific example of Whedon choosing to drive his point home (even though the show was exuding it at every turn already) rather than maintain a narrative consistency.

“This does not undermine what Whedon was trying to say which is always the point of any media communication.”

There’s a lot more to fiction than making a point; there is storytelling itself. There is entertainment. There is a narrative and, hopefully, some level of believability and consistency. There is not ONLY the message, which is why a show is different than a sermon. A really great show does all these things, and doesn’t have to choose between one and the other.

“More to the point if the same question had been asked of Christopher Hitchens he also would have said no and when the reporter asked if that is the end of the story Hitchens would have said yes.”

Aha, I see where the misunderstanding is now. When he says “Absolutely not,” you think he’s answering the second question. I think he’s reiterating his answer to the first one. I think the “Absolutely not” refers to the question of whether or not there’s a God, and that “important and necessary to learn” refers to understanding that there’s no God.

This seems far more likely than the alternative. Let’s have a look at the last bit:

“That’s a very important and necessary thing to learn.”

Under your interpretation, the “That” in the beginning of the sentence would have to refer to the idea of exchanging ideas and discussion, which is not a concept which has been introduced by the questioner…so how could he call it “That”? “That” has to refer to a thing or fact which has already been mentioned. I think it refers to “No” — his claim that there’s no God.

I suppose it’s possible he was actually saying something very positive and concilliatory, as you suggest, but if he was he was saying it in a very awkward way, particularly for someone who’se usually so good with words. It also doesn’t seem consistent with the flat “No” he replied with before.

Regardless, I’m not making him out to be a terrible idealogue, so the point is academic. If he loves the idea of communication among belief systems, great. It wouldn’t really change what I’m saying.

By: Tausif Khan

09.07.2010 @ 4:21 PM

I had never seen a Joss Whedon show before I watched Firefly but the tone of the show to me was that they were not prepared to go beyond the realm of psychic for River. This is because while the show had drama and comedy, the comedy was rooted in the pain of the real drama faced by the chracters.

After seeing Buffy I became even more convinced of this position because Buffy and her friends buy their way into an ever more increasingly supernatural world. Firefly the verse is as it is and there was less metaphor and more semblance of real life. Joss has said that Firefly was something very different tonally than he had ever experienced before and so I would have a hard time believing that River is the ship.

My problem with race in the Joss Whedon ‘verse continues in theis episode with the characterization of Early. Starting with the chracterization of Zoe as an amazon. The issues of race continue with Early being written as a person based on some level on the large archetype of “The Myth of the Black Male Rapist”: [www.umich.edu]. Given that this show is a western and based on the novel Killer Angels: [www.amazon.com] I had problems with the connotations of Early’s actions. Joss’ villains generally tend to be more skectched and usually reveal more depth. This villain mainly remains a foil or simple mirror to bring out more chracter information from the main cast. The movie Serenity continues my issues with race in the Whedon ‘verse.

By: Bobo

09.07.2010 @ 8:28 PM

The one thing I though was odd about the depiction of race on Firefly is the lack of any asian actors. I mean, this future is supposed to be an AngloSino alliance. The characters swear in Chinese, etc. But there isn’t a single Chinese person on the show (as far as I can remember).

By: tigger500

09.07.2010 @ 8:32 PM

Agreed. I too had serious problems with the way Early was drawn even though I enjoyed this episode so much.

In fact, Early and Zoe’s construction crystallized for me Whedon’s blind spot in writing characters of color, particularly Charles Gunn, who was almost purposefully one-dimensional for the entire run of Angel even though every other character on that show was fleshed out in incredibly rich and rewarding ways. Gunn always felt like an appendage, so much so the writers started to acknowledge it in Season 4 when Gwen says to him (in Players) “man they really did a number on you.” Plus – I always read his lawyer-ification as a depiction of “here’s what happens when you give n****s some book learning” that was just unsettling.

By: Tausif Khan

09.08.2010 @ 2:54 AM

Agreed Bobo and tigger500.

Although I think we should also consider that Zoe did get character development enough that we saw her as more than just a warrior. Jubal Early’s characterization also could be a reference to how vile such characterization of African Americans have been deployed. Its possible but I think there is definitely a legitimate critique here.

By: Chrissy

09.08.2010 @ 3:17 AM

I think Jubal is just a psychopath who happens to be played by a black actor. I doubt the character was conceived of as being a particular race, and the actor is fantastic.

I won’t defend Joss’s depictions of races other than white, except to say that I disagree that Zoe and Gunn are one-dimensional. Zoe’s struggle to balance her loyalty to the captain with her love for her husband works, and I feel like, if they’d had more time, they would have mined her status as second-in-command over Jayne. We’re looking at a very short run, where the focus is understandably on Mal and River. I’m not sure it’s fair to judge to harshly based on that. Gunn is trickier – I’m not 100% pleased with where his character went, but, then, the fifth season in general felt a bit off. He was an alpha who became a sidekick, and I think they did a good job of showing how a man with an incredible skill set in one arena (his team on the streets) might feel adrift and a bit useless in a different set of circumstances (second or third banana to a superhero.)

I definitely agree that it’s weird that there aren’t any Chinese folk on Firefly, though. So weird that I wonder if there was some in-story reason that we never got to hear about.

By: Mark M

09.08.2010 @ 10:10 AM

The suggestion that Zoe or Charles are one-dimensional seems very odd to me. Gunn’s personal journey through the seasons of Angel is one of the highlights IMO. Gwen’s comments to him are a part of that journey, and to see them as some acknowledgement by the writers about his lack of worth in the series is to simply miss the point of the story. Sad.

By: tigger500

09.08.2010 @ 3:18 PM

Chrissy

I can see why you think that about Gunn, but it felt to me more like he was adrift because they just didn’t think much about what he could provide other than “muscle.” They spent no real time on his pain at killing his sister, they only did the one episode with the great underutilized Khalil Kain about him abandoning his boys for work with Angel. They never developed the notion raised in that episode that Gunn never fully trusted or even liked Angel at all.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Angel as a show quite a bit. In some ways, it’s a superior show to Buffy. And I really love and respect the work that Joss does, but his characterizations of people of color are, at best, problematic.

By: tigger500

09.08.2010 @ 3:24 PM

Mark

I just disagree. Gunn doesn’t change much over the course of his first three seasons. He’s a plot device used to spark tremendous growth of the Wesley character in season three and he largely stands around holding weapons in season 4. Season 5 saw great change but the subtext of that storyline of making Gunn a lawyer is that he ultimately couldn’t be trusted with great knowledge and he reverted to the muscle (telegraphed in his growing hair as a lawyer and reverting to the bald head at the end of the season). I just think as well-rendered and fascinating as that was to watch, that it is a deeply problematic story on a subtextual level.

I’m not saying I don’t enjoy the people of color on his shows (Kendra and Principal Wood are great. I like that the first slayer was African. I even like Trick), but they tend to be the least developed characters on Joss Whedon’s shows. Gunn has an arc, but it’s nowhere near as well-rendered and as richly drawn as Cordelia, Wesley or Fred. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect, I think.

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 3:44 AM

let’s look at the gamut of minority relationships/deaths on Whedon shows.

Willow and Tara-Tara dies
Xander and Anya- Anya dies from being helpless in a fight
Faith and Robin Wood- (looks to me like) Wood dies in the final episode
Gunn and Fred- Fred dies and becomes Illyria (Wesley is also tied to her and Fred dies first from being helpless)
Angel and Cordelia- Cordelia dies
Wesley and Lilah Morgan- Lilah is decapitated
Lindsay and Eve- Lindsay dies (first time guys dies in white heterosexual relationship)
Wash and Zoe- Wash is killed
Boyd Langton and Whiskey-Boyd dies

Relationships that that don’t end in death:
Buffy and Angel- their love is eternal
Buffy and Spike- Spike goes on to Angel
Cordelia and Groo- Groo goes back to lead a people’s republic
Kaylee and Simon- They get together at the end of Serenity
Tony and Priya- first minority relationship to work
Echo and Ballard- together in the Dollhouse (more abstractly but they are together and it is a happy ending)

The preponderance of evidence that a lot of women die to give the main character and/or male character development.

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 3:46 AM

Also, I could find only one interracial relationship that worked in his shows (I might be wrong but there seems to be a pattern).

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 3:56 AM

Zoe is thought to be an Amazon which plays on the racial stereotype of beast like strength of African Americans (however she does get more character development so this could be seen as Joss subverting the stereotype).

Jubal Early fits the bill for the myth of the black male racist (see above) in his scene with Kaylee. He is just blunt instrument. He fits the young buck stereotype.

Gunn is barely developed for five season. His transition to lawyer was induced and not a natural development. The knowledge was dumped into him and not learned by Gunn fitting a stereotype of undeducated black person. Gunn shows a penchant for intellegance when he mentions that Denzel Washington was robbed for the Oscar for Malcolm X which hints that he has black revolutionary tendencies which implicate that he knows the history of black oppression. This is never referenced again. He remains alone for most of the show.

It is not anyone of these characters but all of them together and their lack of development which causes problems. There are so few black actors or characters that getting more black actors/characters on screen is important and then making sure that the roles represent the diversity of thought, belief and action in the African American community.

In general for television can you name five dramas (excluding The Wire) and focus on African American leads and African American supporting characters?

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 3:58 AM

*that focus

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 4:12 AM

@tigger500

I forgot about Kendra she seemed so out of place the entire time. Thoughts on her accent? I thought she was Jamaican. Trick again a villain.

It is hard for African American characters to be considered a part of the main cast and have the same development as the main cast. I would consider Principal Robin Wood to be the best. Nikki Wood was a bad ass character but then again killed by Spike her clothing used as trophy for Spike.

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 4:17 AM

First Slayer as African is spiritual and mystical very much a part of the past.

Robin Wood can dust three vamps at a time (while Riley struggled with one and Riley was in Special Ops! Wood is only a descendant of the slayer and said he didn’t get any of her powers).

By: tigger500

09.09.2010 @ 9:43 PM

@Tausif

I agree with much of what you said here.

Re: Kendra. The accent was Jamaican but, according to Bianca Lawson, it was a very specific dialect meant to reflect the Kendra’s class as Lawson and her dialect coach (and Joss, presumably) saw it. It is not the more standard (perhaps) stereotypical Jamaican accent that most actors employ, which is why it might have sounded inauthentic when in fact (according to Lawson) it was quite accurate.

By: Tausif Khan

09.10.2010 @ 7:44 AM

@tigger500

You are absolutely right. Kendra’s accent has been the subject of blog discussions elsewhere. If you ever get a chance to listen to the DVD commentary Marti Noxon talks about Kendra’s accent. Noxon said that the dialect coach they got her was really specific and wanted to give her an accent from like a specific county in Jamaica. He became so concerned with getting the accent right that he kept pestering the writers about it. Noxon was the only one to respond to him positively so he kept on saying that he would only talk to Marti Noxon. After this Joss designated Noxon as the person who would deal with the dialect coach.

By: Anonymous

09.13.2010 @ 9:31 PM

I’m not a watcher of any of the other whedon shows, so i’m not qualified to comment on race as a whole in the whedonverse. But as much as I enjoyed this episode, I was going to post my discomfort with the repeated rape threats at the top of my post.

As a black man, it really made me cringe when he first starts up with the old “where da white women at?” rape talk. It just played to all the old stereotypical fears. Although I’ve seen white characters on other shows imply rapist desires on their captives, I still really have a hard time believing that would have been the first words written for the character if he was played by a white actor on this show. His intro was basically, “Hi. I’m black. I’m a bounty hunter. I’m a raper of white women. Hate me.”

I like Zoe as a character and for me she didn’t get any more short shrift than Wash or Shepard, for that matter. If anything we’ve seen more of her back story because of the war stories with Captain Tightpants. And I think we’d have gotten more if the series wasn’t cancelled so abrubtly.

To recap, loved ADA Brooks as the villian, loved his weirdness, offended by his rapiness.

By: Liz

09.07.2010 @ 4:50 PM

I fell behind on Firefly, so will check back here after I get to watch Objects in Space. In the mean time, though, may I recommend the DVD commentaries for Leverage? No breaks, no rambling, just 42 minutes of the producers (led by John Rogers who really drives the commentaries), writers and director giving an entertaining seminar in television. There’s background on the cons, the technology and techniques, and the bad guys — so much of which is based on reality that it’s kind of scary.

Sorry, rather off-topic. Just had to throw that out there. Back to Firefly discussion…

By: Alden Kascak-Harth

09.07.2010 @ 6:22 PM

I have enjoyed your “Firefly” reviews and wonder about your fondness for past Joss Whedon fare, specifically your feelings about “Angel.” Do you rate it high in quality or feel it didn’t measure up to the standards of his other works?

By: sepinwall

09.07.2010 @ 11:24 PM

Angel I watched off and on, in part because it took until late into season two (the trip to Lorne’s home dimension) for the show to really find itself, in part because the WB kept putting it in timeslots against two or three shows I liked better. I’ve filled in some of the blanks over the years, but not all. I guess my main issue is Boreanaz; I like him a lot doing lighter comedy on Bones, but was never that knocked out by him as a dramatic actor, and thus never fell for Angel the way I did for similar shows where I found the leads more compelling.

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 4:05 AM

Alan I urge you to watch the rest of the series. Angel on Buffy is not the same Angel on Angel. He gets so much better focusing on his own eternal fight for redemption.

By: tigger500

09.09.2010 @ 9:45 PM

You weren’t knocked out by Boreanaz’ dramatic chops?! Really? I find that fascinating. His work in Seasons 3 and 4 was downright Emmy-worthy.

By: Mark M

09.10.2010 @ 11:04 AM

And there is still plenty of light comedy work throughout Angel the Series. I too think he does just fine with the more serious stuff.

By: RocketDigitalPro

09.07.2010 @ 7:37 PM

I caught up with you guys by powering through the series over the last two weekends. Being a huge fan of Joss’ I can see the setup he was working on in this ep. Would this have been the middle of the season or would there have only been 14 eps (midseason pickup) for the first season? I ask because in true Buffy/Angel style this would be about the point that the show would pick up. This very much seemed to be pointing in that direction. Who would have been the Big BAD? I very much enjoyed this show and the RE-Watch with all of you guys. I hope that somewhere in the near future we will get Firefly:continues…..

By: sepinwall

09.07.2010 @ 11:22 PM

It was a fall show, with Fox airing the “last” episode (the pilot, in fact) close to Christmas. So if there was a back (or back 8, given the weirdness with the pilot), we might have seen the men with hands of blue evolve into that season’s big bad.

By: Tausif Khan

09.09.2010 @ 4:01 AM

Big Bad is the Blue Sun corporation/Alliance for what they did to River and Mal respectively (what they did is abstractly connected).

By: HitFix User

09.08.2010 @ 1:21 AM

I just had a labor day weekend of watching all of the firefly series plus the serenity movie. Now that I’ve found Alan’s commentary I can watch them all over a bit at a time. I like EVERYTHING about the series. And I love reading the comments that point out the highlights. I didn’t watch much of Wheden’s other stuff and don’t remember the wonderful firefly kind of humor present.

By: Anonymous

09.13.2010 @ 9:45 PM

Busy week last week so I’m late to the party. But I did want to thank Alan again for letting me rewatch this series. I only watched one episode during it’s original airing but after watching the Serenity movie in the theater I immediately rented the series and loved them as much as the movie. It’s amazing to what this show could have done with even a three year run on Fox. Hell, I’d settle for the 2 seasons and abrubt wrap up that DollHouse got.

Loved the tone of this episode, loved the existential bounty hunter (is there her room if she’s not in it), loved watching River float back to the ship with her goofy I-love-space smile. Hated hated HATED the rapey black man trope but I addressed that in a reply to another post. Loved that Jane had the best one-liner in an ep full of good one-liners. Loved the throw away line about Shepard not being a Shepard. I guess game recognize game, and one killer can spot another killer at first glance.

At about the 33 min mark I was hitting the info button on my video player to see how much more of this series I had left to enjoy. Finding out that I only had 11 minutes left made me unreasonably sad. Strange to be sad about reaching the end of a series that ended years ago and who’s episodes I’ve already watched 2-3 times.

Glad you decided to do a post on the movie. I know your schedule has to be insane right now but I hope you give it the time it deserves. I’ve got my movie queued up and ready to watch this week and I’m going to enjoy the hell out of it. Again.